Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacMatt72
I spoke with someone at Global West, who stated that, while the control arm can use the tall ball joint, it would provide little to no benefit. The design of the arms supposedly takes care of whatever benefit you may see from the tall ball joint.
Guess I’ll stick with the standard joint instead of a tall ball joint in my Global West CTA-42A control arms.
|
This is incorrect. no control arm design can alter the camber curve in bump and droop.
Only physically changing the pickup locations for the upper and lower control arms, or changing knuckle height can accomplish that.
What most altered geometry arms do is add in a bit (typically 2 degrees) of static positive caster, or are designed to allow higher levels of caster adjustment.
Caster does create negative camber gain, but requires steering input to achieve it. In auto-x settings where you have a lot of wheel input, the effect is more pronounced. During shallow cornering maneuvers that you see on the street, or perhaps at an open road race during a high speed sweeper, you don't have enough steering input to create enough negative camber gain from the caster to overcome the lousy camber curve in bump travel.
The net result is you don't have enough grip and you start to plow because you've rolled over the sidewall of the tire.
If the global west arm hasn't had the ball joint socket repositioned for lowered cars, go with a .5" tall upper ball joint. It won't completely fix the camber curve, but it does help and with the additional caster you'll be able to get from the upper arms, it's much better than not having it.